Ken Ham and the GAE

[Chris_Falter]

When you said this:

@swamidass

They have a chance to recover everything they say they care about, including an entirely literal reading of Genesis, within mainstream science. If they have been honest about their reasons for opposing evolution, they no longer have reason to oppose it.

… I thought “they” included Ham. Evidently I was mistaken.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I mean rank and file YECs. Of course, if Ham is true to his word, he has the same opportunity too. That 100 million dollar debt over his head might make that difficult for him though.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Faizal_Ali

I thought the goal was to get them to accept science…?

Good luck with that when “There’s a book”.

[Ashwin_s]

@swamidass

There is no conflict with Gods Word and the GAE. Great selling point. We’ll have to see about Ham’s word

There is a conflict between Scientific consensus and the YEC interpretation. GAE works in an old earth perspective provided people are willing to work within a narrower understanding of what it means to be human.I don’t see how it solves anything in a YEC perspective.

All the best and may God be with you…
Keep us posted.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Ashwin_s

There is a conflict between Scientific consensus and the YEC interpretation.

There is also one between the scientific consensus and GAE. Unless you’d care to link to the plethora of scientific publications discussing the de novo creation of human beings by supernatual gods.

[Ashwin_s]

@Faizal_Ali

There is also one between the scientific consensus and GAE

You are a Psychiatrist and I am an Engineer… When people like @John_Harshman, @swamidass etc can both agree that GAE does not violate Science consensus, i think we can give them the benefit of the doubt.

Unless of course, you know some specific way in which GAE is in violation Of Scientific consensus.

@Faizal_Ali

Unless you’d care to link to the plethora of scientific publications discussing the de novo creation of human beings by supernatual gods

De Novo creation of Human beings is something Science does not directly address.
Again, the point that Science can comment on is whether the De Novo creation of a male/female couple 6000 years ago can be detected by Scientific tools.
Its seems such claims cannot be evaluated by Scientific means.

Scientists also cannot make the claim that De Novo creation cannot happen or that God does not exist etc.

So, the parts of the GAE that can be addressed by Science are not in conflict with it. This does not mean GAE is a “Scientific hypothesis”… Its a theological hypothesis which is not in conflict with Science.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

The problem, for them, however, is that this is a total departure from what the text of Genesis says. I was just speaking to a group of high schoolers raised on AIG last week, and they saw it very quickly.

Could you flesh this out a bit? I am curious about the AIG high schoolers and how they view Noah’s flood and historic human populations. Are they saying there were other humans alive after the flood, that perhaps Noah’s flood was local?

@swamidass

They say it is about taking Scripture literally, and that is what GAE gives them. It gives them a far more literal and far more traditional reading than AIG. In the end they just have to choose what the trust more: God’s word or Ham’s word.

It is amazing how some YEC’s add to the Bible without realizing it.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Ashwin_s

De Novo creation of Human beings is something Science does not directly address.

Wrong. If human beings were popping out of thin air “de novo” every few minutes, science would bloody well know about it.

We could just as easily say that General Relativity was violated just one time, and no one noticed. If we believed that, we would have to also conclude that General Relativity no longer holds.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

The problem, for them, however, is that this is a total departure from what the text of Genesis says. I was just speaking to a group of high schoolers raised on AIG last week, and they saw it very quickly.

Could you flesh this out a bit? I am curious about the AIG high schoolers and how they view Noah’s flood and historic human populations. Are they saying there were other humans alive after the flood, that perhaps Noah’s flood was local?

I don’t want to give away too much now publicly. I will hint a little bit.

A literal reading of Genesis requires us to conclude that there were people outside the garden, and that the flood was not global. AIG deviates wildly (and inconsistently) from a literal reading of Genesis when they claim otherwise. If a literal reading of Genesis is important, we should reject AIG. Perhaps there are other versions of YEC consistent with a literal reading of Genesis, but not their version.

How do students respond? When you show them the contradictions, they immediately see it. They often volunteer they have often wondered about people outside the garden too, and they are really interested to explore that mystery.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

How do students respond? When you show them the contradictions, they immediately see it. They often volunteer they have often wondered about people outside the garden too, and they are really interested to explore that mystery.

A curious audience lacking the ingrained biases of adulthood is a glorious thing.

[Djordje]

@John_Harshman

What could you possibly say about Ken Ham that would be good?

He’s not as bad as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell Junior?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@Djordje

He’s not as bad as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell Junior?

He also has a cool accent.

[John_Harshman]

@Ashwin_s

When people like @John_Harshman, @swamidass etc can both agree that GAE does not violate Science consensus

I wouldn’t put it that way, mostly because I don’t know what “violate Science consensus” means. I’d say the consensus of the scientific community would likely be that de novo creation of organisms does not happen. But in the case of A&E there is no possible data to show that it didn’t.

[John_Harshman]

@Djordje

He’s not as bad as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell Junior?

Or Torquemada or Stalin. Why, I bet there are hundreds of people, living and dead, that he’s not as bad as. Maybe thousands.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Harshman

I’d say the cnsensus of the scientific community would likely be that de novo creation of organisms does not happen. But in the case of A&E there is no possible data to show that it didn’t

Ya, that’s what I mean… that’s why I said GAE is a theological hypothesis which does not contradict science.

As to the consensus of the Scientific community regarding De Novo creation, I might call it an opinion… And one that doesn’t matter much (No offence intended).

[John_Harshman]

@Ashwin_s

that’s why I said GAE is a theological hypothesis which does not contradict science.

Careful with your language. That is not in fact what you said.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Harshman

That is not in fact what you said

I said this in the end of my reply to Fazal-

Its a theological hypothesis which is not in conflict with Science.

You can check it above… I was referring to this comment. Do you find a problem with it? How would you phrase it?

[John_Harshman]

@Ashwin_s

I said this in the end of my reply to Fazal-

But that isn’t what I was responding to, was it?

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Harshman

But that isn’t what I was responding to, was it

Where are we going with this… You made a point. I acknowledged it and pointed you to the main point I am making.

What is bothering you here exactly?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ashwin_s

But that isn’t what I was responding to, was it

Where are we going with this… You made a point. I acknowledged it and pointed you to the main point I am making.

What is bothering you here exactly?

He is trying to explain how to state the GAE in a way that does not rile scientists. I know it seems picky, but he has a point. Part of the reason I’ve been able to convince secular scientists is that I understand the point he is making, and I have been very careful in following those rules too.